Meet Ant-Man, aka Paul Rudd

I have always loved Ant-Man, and have felt that many comic book writers never knew what to do with such a square, straight-laced character, so they often gave him psychological problems and other issues to try and make him more interesting.  The funny thing is, those writers always wound up returning Ant-Man's alter ego, Hank Pym, back to who he was in the beginning, because Stan Lee knew what he was doing when he first created the character.  With my rambling set aside, it has been no secret that the first Marvel film after The Avengers: Age of Ultron, would be Ant-Man, and we've just been waiting on casting, seeing as the film starts production next year for a July of 2015 release.  Well, it's pretty much official now, after a good long while of it being rumored, Paul Rudd is looking like he is for sure going to play the Marvel superhero Ant-Man.

Yes, Rudd, who is best known for his work in comedies like Anchorman and the works of Judd Apatow, will portray Hank Pym, the genius scientist who discovered a particle that enabled him to change the size of his body at will.  Personally, I find this very smart, inspired casting.  I've always liked Rudd, he has this great, charming, everyman quality about him, and he has surprising dramatic chops as well.  Sure, he is mostly seen as a comedian, but he's played the straight man most of his career, just look at his work in Knocked Up, or even in Friends, and I for one think he is a perfect fit for Pym.  He has charm, but does not look like a superhero, which is what really defines Hank Pym.  He's a scientist, who's more interested in using scientific exploration to bring about peace than he is with being a superhero.  Now, the big question is whether or not we will be seeing the second Ant-Man, Scott Lang, as well.

Ant-Man has been in development for as long as Marvel Studios has been producing their own movies.  Director Edgar Wright jumped onboard the project around the same time as Jon Favreau started the first Iron Man film, and Wright, alongside writing partner Joe Cornish, have been tweaking their Ant-Man script now for over a half of a decade, neither of whom have ever seemed to waver in their commitment to the project.  Back when they first started, Wright commented that the film would feature both Hank Pym and Scott Lang.  Lang was the second Ant-Man, but he was not a hero at first.  Scott Lang actually started out by stealing the Ant-Man tech from Pym's house when his daughter got sick, so that he could turn to a life of crime to help her.  Only after Lang wound up using the technology for good, did Lang become the new Ant-Man.  As of right now, we don't know for sure that this is the story that Wright and Cornish are still going to tell, but considering comments as recent as a few months ago with Wright saying that Ant-Man is a heist movie, this all makes me think that yes, it is, so what can we expect?

Personally, I think we can expect a variation of the story I just mentioned up above.  I think the film will start with Hank Pym as Ant-Man, and then he'll hang it up and we'll see Scott Lang steal the tech and so on and so forth.  The thing is, the initial idea was to show flashbacks of Pym as Ant-Man in the Sixties, but after the success of The Avengers, I just don't think Marvel Studios would do that, because whenever you do Hank Pym, you'll also have to do Janet Van Dyne, aka the Wasp, Pym's girlfriend and eventual wife.  The Wasp has the same abilities as Ant-Man, but she can also fire tiny little energy blasts called stings and grows wings when she shrinks down, enabling her to fly.  The reason as to why this nixes the whole idea of a Sixties setting, is because the Wasp is quite possibly the most recognizable female Avenger of all-time, and to do Hank Pym without her would be wrong, but to do it where the Wasp could never team up with the Avengers, would also be wrong.  This is why I think if we see any form of a Hank Pym who has given up on being a superhero, it would still be modern day.  Of course, all this talk about the Avengers brings up the even more intriguing notion as to if Pym or Janet will play any part in Age of Ultron, which hits theaters only two months before Ant-Man?

Right now, while Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon is saying that Ant-Man will not be a part of Age of Ultron, I still remain skeptical of those statements.  How often have folks in Hollywood lied to try and preserve a story that they aren't ready to be revealed?  Kind of like how Benedict Cumberbatch was for sure not Khan, only to wind up being Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness.  The way I see it, I think it would be an utter shame to not at least include Hank Pym before he is Ant-Man in Age of Ultron.  In the comics, Hank created the titular Ultron, a robot he designed to be the perfect peacekeeper, who only realized that the only way to true peace was to eradicate the Avengers.  To do Ultron with Hank Pym would be strange.  While they can do it, I think that with Ant-Man and Age of Ultron being so close together, it would only be natural to have Paul Rudd in both, but I don't call the shots.

As for right now, all we can do is speculate and listen to the rumors, creating more rumors as we talk and hypothesize, but the real takeaway point right now is the casting of Paul Rudd as Hank Pym.  Will the rumored Rashida Jones join him as the Wasp?  I hope so, because I think she'd be a perfect Janet, counterbalancing Rudd with the charm and charisma she brings to roles, but once again it's just a rumor.  However, I'll leave you with something real.  How about some of the Ant-Man test footage that Edgar Wright showed at Comic-Con two years ago?  The footage is merely a concept of what the action in the film would be like, with Wright jokingly calling it "size-fu."  If this footage is in any indication, no matter what happens and what doesn't, we're going to be in for a good time when Ant-Man hits theaters, however it's all very brief.  You can see more by looking up the test footage on YouTube, but all of it except for the clip below is from shaky bootleggers who filmed it at Comic-Con on their phones and stuff.

Top 10: Steven Spielberg Films (Updated)

Steven Spielberg is my favorite director of all-time, and with today being his sixty-seventh birthday, I figured what better time than to revisit his best films.  I've updated my list of the ten best Steven Spielberg films to honor the man's monumental achievements as a director.  While there are many great films that I had to leave off the list, I think the ten films represented perfectly sum up Spielberg's career for me, so let's celebrate his birthday together and take a trip down memory lane.

****

10.  War of the Worlds

Perhaps more well-known now for being the film that Tom Cruise went on Oprah to promote when he jumped on her couch, none of that can still take away the thrills that come in what I believe to be Spielberg's most suspenseful blockbuster he's ever made.  There is a heart to this film, as we see Tom Cruise's everyman trying to protect his two estranged children, and that is what makes this film actually suspenseful.  You relate and you care, so when the aliens attack and start destroying the world, it's terrifying.  This is one of those rare remakes that actually bests its original, and I for one love Spielberg's gall to make one of these kind of disaster films and not be tempted to show Tom Cruise be a military character and saving the world.  War of the Worlds is simply a story about an ordinary guy in an extraordinary situation, trying to survive, and the larger issues are merely the backdrop where Cruise's actions have no affect on them.

9.  Saving Private Ryan

Spielberg's love letter to the Greatest Generation is also the greatest war film ever made.  The thing that made this film so groundbreaking at its time, was it completely went against the grain of every other war film ever made.  Spielberg actually made you feel like you were there when the Allies stormed Normandy, rather than glossing things over with pretty cinematography, everything is grimy, the camerawork is shaky with dirt and water on the lens, and the violence is unrelenting.  Beyond that, this film did not place these brave men on a pedestal, it actually showcased their human flaws, and yet it made them all the more relatable because of that, making their sacrifices actually mean something.  This film is heartwrenching, yet hopeful at the same time.  If you are ever in need of a reminder of what true patriotism is, watch this film.

8.  Close Encounters of the Third Kind

This is by far the best portrayal of contact between aliens and humans ever put to film.  What Spielberg did here was play down the science fiction aspects, and almost makes this science fiction film feel like a fantasy.  The sequences with the alien spaceships and the aliens themselves are so fantastical, so spiritually affirming, that it's hard to classify this film as science fiction.  Then there are the spiritual undertones that the story is laced with, and it makes this an even more fascinating film on an academic level.  Perhaps it is a loose interpretation of Saul's transformation into Paul, or perhaps not, but the parallels certainly make this a film I can't stop watching.

7.  Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Last Crusade is all about the past, and it's what makes it stand apart from the other Indiana Jones films.  From the opening sequence where we see how a young Indiana Jones became the man we all know and love, to the introduction of Sean Connery as Indy's father, this film gave us more clues as to who Indy really was deep down, and why he is that way.  With tons of knee-slapping comedy, and an ending that is so emotionally resonant that it will make anyone reflect on their own relationship with their father, Last Crusade is an adventure film that has more on its mind than just whips and fisticuffs, and that is why it's such a special film.

6.  Catch Me If You Can

This is one of Spielberg's most glee-filled films, featuring terrific performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks.  It is based on a true story that is so fantastical, it's hard to believe that it all actually happened.  The story of 19-year old conman, Frank Abagnale, Jr., is one for the ages, and one that exemplifies the age-old Spielberg theme of a refusal to grow up.  It showcases the optimistic innocence of youth in all its glory, while also highlighting the importance and potential rewards that can be found in maturation.  Of course, what really makes this one of my favorite Spielberg films is that it's simply a whole lot of fun, with tons of smiling going on while you're watching the film unfold.

5.  Jaws

Forget the fact that the shark looks fake, Jaws is still one of the most entertaining blockbusters to ever be committed to film.  The thing is, had Jaws merely been a film out to use cutting edge animatronic technology to realize the thrills and chills of the story, then it would not have become a classic of cinema.  It is because Jaws had relatable everyman characters as the heroes, and the fact that we never get a full on look at the shark till the final thirty minutes, that makes this such a thrill ride of a film.  From Roy Scheider's fish out-of-water Chief Brody (who coincidentally is afraid of the water), to Robert Shaw's Quint, the characters are lively and likable, and the shark...  Well, let's just say that he's now a thing of legend.

4.  Jurassic Park

This is the first film I ever remember seeing in a movie theater, and I still have a deep affection for it to this very day, but not for that reason alone.  For me, Jurassic Park is not just a blockbuster thrill ride, but it's an emotional experience.  From the moment we first see the dinosaurs in all of their majestic beauty, to the heart warming relationship between Dr. Grant and the two children, this film just packs an emotional resonance that many other imitators lack.  Then there are the special effects, which still stand tall as some of the best CGI work ever done.  Featuring seamless transitions from real animatronics to computer generated dinosaurs, never has there been a more convincing recreation of an extinct world.

3.  Raiders of the Lost Ark

"If adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones."  That tag line sums up everything you need to know about Indiana Jones, and why Raiders of the Lost Ark is not only one of Spielberg's finest films, but is one of the best films period.  When Dr. Jones first arrives on the scene, stealing the artifact and getting chased by a boulder, you're hooked before you even know his name.  Harrison Ford is the man in the hat, and there is no other man alive that could have brought this character to life.  There is a tough guy swagger, mixed with a charming vulnerability that makes Indy not feel like an action figure superhero, but like a real man who's just more awesome than we'll ever be.  There has never been an action hero introduced since that has been so iconic, and in many ways I don't think there ever will be.  This is just a perfect film through and through, and it further reinforces the need and desire for a little mystery and adventure in our lives.

2.  E.T.  The Extra-Terrestrial

E.T. is an emotional roller coaster ride from beginning to end.  Like the conductor of a symphony, it plays your emotions in a way that no other film in the history of cinema has ever managed to do.  No other film have I ever seen manages to go from moments of frivolity, to moments of tenderness and sadness, with such a natural transition.  However, E.T. is most importantly a story of hope.  It is the result of a desire to find the good in all people, no matter how alien they may be.  It is that very hope that allows this film to still put a smile on your face, even after E.T. has had to leave Elliot and return home.  We should be sad, but we aren't.  While we will miss E.T., we know that not only Elliot, but us as well, have been changed for the better by knowing E.T.

1.  Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Temple of Doom is Spielberg's finest hour as a director.  This is inarguably the best of the Indiana Jones films, and it's simply because it is the most fun.  While this is the most dark Indy film, it's got so much humor seeping out from beneath the cracks that it manages to be fun and suspenseful at the same time.  Short Round is the most awesomely hilarious sidekick you could ever have given a cynical Harrison Ford to play off of.  Then there is the fact that this is just a legitimately creepy film.  The villains are so terrifying, that when Indy finally gets the upper hand, you cheer.  When Indy stands in that mineshaft, with the light of an oncoming mine car illuminating his angry face, you know he's about to bust some bad guys up and you can't wait to see it.  As a matter of fact, that final thirty minutes still makes me feel like a five-year-old kid sitting on the rug, watching a great heroic adventure play out.  Nothing can beat those kind of warm-and-fuzzies.

****

And there you have it.  Happy Birthday, Steven!

Movie Review: "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"

Sometimes you really want to love a movie, and when you wind up only liking it, it's more painful than if you just flat out hated it.  That's how I am with this second installment of The Hobbit trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug.  I wanted to love this film so much, because I loved The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first part of The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, but The Desolation of Smaug is further proving that perhaps Peter Jackson should have just made The Hobbit one long three-and-a-half hour movie, rather than three separate three hour films.

In this installment, we catch back up with Bilbo and the thirteen dwarves, still pursued by a pack of orcs as they try to reach the Lonely Mountain and take back the dwarf kingdom of Erebor from the vile dragon, Smaug.  Of course, as is par for the course, nothing goes according to plan and our heroes must face many trials and tribulations before they actually get there.

The biggest difference between The Desolation of Smaug and An Unexpected Journey is that this film just isn't as much fun as its predecessor.  An Unexpected Journey was a lighthearted adventure film that perhaps played to a far younger crowd than most diehard Tolkien addicts would have wanted, but it is what made that film both different from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and also an enjoyable adventure film in its own right.

This time around, most of the humor is gone and there is a serious lack of emotional beats, which was one thing An Unexpected Journey had in ample supply.  A large part of this is because the events that are adapted here are purely action beats that have been dragged out in every possible way, adding in characters that never existed before, while also expanding upon characters who perhaps didn't need as much screen-time as they've gotten.  Personally, I loved seeing Legolas again, as portrayed by Orlando Bloom, and I rather took a liking to his elf love interest, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lily, but these characters were not necessary for this film, the same goes for the extremely broadened role for Bard the bowman.  All of these new characters take the focus off of Bilbo far too often.

Unlike The Lord of the Rings trilogy where these films were really ensemble films, featuring multiple character arcs, The Hobbit has always been purely about Bilbo Baggins and his going from a mild-mannered hobbit, to a great hero.  We kind of already saw that arc play out in its entirety in the first film of this trilogy, so now there is very little room for Bilbo to continue growing, and therefore I guess that's the reason that there is so much more focus on everyone else, but this is still supposed to be Bilbo's story, right?  Then why do we spend so much time fleshing out all these other characters and not showing how these events that Bilbo is experiencing are affecting him?  Without any moments for Bilbo that really test him emotionally in this film, I never felt tested emotionally by what I was seeing, and it saddens me, because the emotions of all the previous Middle Earth films have always been so potent, to see a film set in that world that isn't as emotionally potent is just heartwrenching.  Even still, this makes me sound like I hated The Desolation of Smaug, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

What I've been speaking mostly with is disappointment, but there are elements of The Desolation of Smaug that delivered, in particular the action sequences.  The spiders of Mirkwood are creepy and realized beautifully, the same goes for the titular dragon Smaug, but perhaps the most awesome sequence of the film is when the dwarves escape the woodland elves by jumping inside wine barrels floating down a river, all while fighting off orcs.  Then there are the new and expanded characters that manage to at least create a nice diversion, even if they are not essential and might have been better served being relegated to an Extended Editon Blu Ray.  I for one enjoyed Tauriel and her story arc, and I really enjoyed seeing this odd romance that she develops with the dwarf Kili.  As well, I found Bard the bowman a welcome addition that, while does not replace the gaping hole that is Aragorn, it at least gives you a human hero to root for.

Ultimately, if you have loved every film set within Middle Earth up to this point, you will find enough in The Desolation of Smaug to enjoy, and hey, you might even love it, but this outing just left me disappointed.  I think the truth of the matter is, is that Peter Jackson and company just spread this small children's book out too thin and have already resolved majority of the primary story and character arcs, therefore there is nowhere to go other than to introduce new characters that draw away focus from our main heroes, while barreling forward with action.  Plus, am I the only one that was underwhelmed by the special effects and Howard Shore's music this go around?  The effects often looked very rushed and unpolished, which is very unlike Peter Jackson and WETA, and Howard Shore's score completely ignored the awesomely memorable main theme he wrote for the last film centered around, "The Song of the Lonely Mountain," which is also very unlike him.  Here is hoping they step up their game in order to make next year's final installment in the trilogy, There and Back Again, the film that rights the ship.

I give The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug a B+!

The Future of Indiana Jones

There has been a question mark ever since Disney bought Lucasfilm over a year ago -- What does this mean for Indiana Jones?  Up to this point, all we'd heard Disney talk about was the Star Wars franchise, and that was because there were still some hangups holding Dr. Jones back.  Finally, Disney has struck a deal with Paramount Pictures, the makers and distributors of the first four Indiana Jones films, and Disney now has the rights to the Indiana Jones franchise, with the ability to make future films.

The deal works as such, Paramount will retain the rights to the first four Indiana Jones films, basically anything Indy before the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm, and Disney will own anything that's done with the character from now on.  A fair deal if you ask me and one that if you believe the rumors, had to occur.  The word has been for a while now that Harrison Ford would not sign the deal to return as Han Solo in these new Star Wars films unless he had a guarantee of a new Indy movie in the future.  Whether or not that is true, this pretty much answers the final lingering question that Lucasfilm fans have had since the Disney acquisition.  Of course, I think the proper question here is if this is a good thing?

Personally, I don't think it can hurt the character of Indiana Jones anymore than many fans feel his last outing, 2008's Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, did.  I know I'm in the minority, but I never disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  While there were a good many eye-rolling moments that were a little too cheesy even for me, as a whole it was a thrilling film with enough good ideas to outweigh the bad.  I personally feel that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg handled the transition from the supernatural to science fiction naturally and authentically in regards to the Fifties time period, I just wish they hadn't married Indy off.  I had nothing wrong with him having a son, just don't marry one of the most notorious players in Hollywood history off.  With that aside, regardless as to whether or not you liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there is going to be a fifth Indiana Jones movie starring an almost seventy-year-old Harrison Ford.

Lucas & Spielberg on the set of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

While there is no word on story, cast, crew, or release date, this fifth film in the series will happen.  Disney would not have made as big of a deal about all this if it wasn't.  In all truthfulness though, I think that this fifth film gives everyone that was involved with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull one last chance to get it right before they all officially hang up the character for good.  Think of it as Ford's last hurrah as his most arguably popular character.  Of course, I don't want this fifth film to happen without the participation of Lucas and Spielberg.  Say what you want about the guys, but it was that dynamic duo that gave us the original three Indy films, and therefore I don't think a Harrison Ford Indiana Jones movie would be the same without Lucas playing an active role in the story development and without Spielberg directing.  Back in 2011, Lucas did allude to the fact that he was close to cracking the story for a fifth film, he just needed the MacGuffin, or the item that Indy is hunting for in this new film.  Perhaps that will still be the basis for this film?  The thing is, even if Lucas's story is, or isn't used, and Spielberg doesn't return, this movie will occur, and here's what I personally want to see.

I think Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's greatest mistake, was that it married Indy off.  They gave Indy a happy ending, and they could conceivably end his story there.  Any future story taking place in the Indiana Jones chronology would then have to acknowledge Marion and Mutt, two of the more controversial inclusions of the fourth film amongst fans.  Here's what I think they should do.  Just wipe the slate clean.  Do what you did with The Temple of Doom, go back into the past.

Ford does not look all that much different than he did six years ago when they filmed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, do a story that took place maybe a year or two before that film.  Indy is always going on adventures, and Lucas and Spielberg let us know early on that these adventures aren't always going to take place in chronological fashion, given that The Temple of Doom was technically a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, taking place a full year before that film.  This same approach would allow Lucas and Spielberg to get back to what made the first three films so enjoyable, the fact that each film was a standalone adventure not tied into a larger continuity.

If you rewatch the original three Indiana Jones films, in each film he had a different love interest, a different sidekick, and a different villain.  These things rarely came back or returned, I know there are exceptions like Sallah and Marcus Brody, but irregardless, the love interests always were different, so having Marion Ravenwood return in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull went against the foundation that was set up with the first Indiana Jones sequel.  In this fifth film, have it take place a year or two earlier.

Harrison Ford in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

You can still have the Russians replace the Nazis as the bad guys, because that was one of the most awesome aspects of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but this time let's not have any past loves or sidekicks come back for old time's sake.  Give Indy a new love interest, or better yet, give him a young sidekick who is a girl, who is doing all of the romancing with young boys and Indy is more of a mentor.  She could even be one of his students, maybe a grad student who is like his protege or something, setting up potential spin-offs I might add, if Disney wanted to go that route.  Of course, most importantly, I'd just want to see a return to the filmmaking practices of the original three Indy films.  More location shooting, very minimal special effects' work, and the little that there is, is done practically in camera, with more stunts and real photography than anything else.  However, this fifth Indiana Jones movie may only be the tip of the iceberg for Dr. Jones's future.

As was pointed out by Drew McWeeny on Hitfix, Disney would not have gone through all of this trouble to get the rights to the Indiana Jones character unless they had plans for multiple films featuring him.  Conceivably, Harrison Ford can only hold out to do one more film as Indy, therefore what does that mean for all of those other films?  Drew said it might mean reboot, and I hate to say that he is probably right.  Of course, is recasting the actor rebooting the series?  If they remade Raiders with a new actor, then I think that would be a reboot, but James Bond has been recast multiple times and we don't call the transition from Connery to Moore a Bond reboot, so why should a transition from Ford to someone else be seen as any different?

Honestly, I've always thought that the character of Indiana Jones had the potential to be like a James Bond, with a new film every few years and the hat being passed off to a new actor every decade or so to keep the character alive.  Originally that was the intent of Lucas and Spielberg, but rather than keeping the films going, they let them stall out.  If the recasting way was to work, it should have been done in the early Nineties after The Last Crusade, as it is, we've gotten to a point where Harrison Ford has become so revered as the character, anyone else playing an Indiana Jones in his prime would be so ridiculed it wouldn't even be funny.  Still, if Disney is looking to make more Indiana Jones films post-Harrison Ford, then they need to do the only thing I think they can do, return to the idea of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

River Phoenix as Young Indy in The Last Crusade

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles was one of the best TV shows of all-time, showing different adventures from Indy's formative years, traveling the world and going on adventures with his father.  Doing a Young Indiana Jones movie, I think, is the best way to go following Harrison Ford's retirement from the character.  There have already been three different actors that have portrayed a younger Indiana Jones, none of which are as iconically revered as Ford, therefore recasting the part wouldn't be seen as badly.  Not to mention that this reopens the Indy playbook.

Indy would be young again, younger than ever actually.  He could still be a little wet behind the ears, a little brash, a little bit of a player, and could be a daring man of action, once more.  Of course, I would not want this to be a set of origin films either, showing us how certain things later in his life came to be.  Let these films be standalone adventures, and here's where I think these movies should start.  I think the TV show pretty well chronicled Indy's childhood and teenage years, so why not show us an early-twenties Indy in college going on an adventure with his professor for his first outing, or perhaps even his first solo adventure without his dad or a professor.  Not only could casting a young, charismatic actor in the part help draw in a new, younger audience to these movies, it could also allow Disney the chance to grow this Indy up onscreen.  Think about it, if this actor is well cast and sticks with it, or even if they recast Indy every few films or so, it would accustom the audience to seeing a different face as Indy, so by the time whatever actor is still portraying Indy is in his thirties, we could actually see a return to Nazis and World War II-era adventures, giving fans what they really want.

At this juncture, all of this is just me hypothesizing and lobbying for what I want to see.  Personally, I'd love to get my Independent film I'm working on made, so that I can become enough of a Hollywood player to where I could potentially pitch my idea for how to do Indy post-Ford.  Maybe even cast the new actor, write the film, and direct it.  Hey, an Indy fan can dream, can't he?

I Wanna Be Like Marvel!

So this past week has been a huge one for superhero movie news.  We've got confirmation and casting of Wonder Woman in the Man of Steel sequel featuring Ben Affleck's Batman.  We have gotten the first trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, looking to up the ante as well with three villains.  Then there was the announcement yesterday that director Bryan Singer plans to follow-up next year's X-Men: Days of Future Past with X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016.  Not only that, Fox announced this morning that they've hired screenwriter/producer, Simon Kinberg, to create a "Marvel" style universe for the superhero properties of Fox, being the X-Men and Fantastic Four.  If that's not enough, in the realm of television, DC introduced us to Barry Allen, aka the future Flash, on the CW's Arrow, setting up a Flash spin-off show for next Fall.  Just let all of this sink in for a moment...

Okay, so as a die hard comic book fan, all of this superhero movie news is certainly exciting, but it also sets off a few red alarms.  Had this been a decade ago, I'd be utterly speechless right now at all this awesome news, but the only reason we're getting all of this news is because of one entity:  Marvel Studios.

There is a common misconception, even though the X-Men and Spider-Man films have the Marvel logo before their movies, that's really just a formality.  X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four, are the only three Marvel Comics' properties that Marvel Studios does not currently own the film rights to, with Fox owning X-Men and the FF, and Sony with Spidey.  So as much as you'd love to see Spider-Man fighting alongside the Avengers, it just is more than likely never going to happen.  As for DC and Warner Bros., they're just trying to play catch-up.

At the end of the day, all of these different film studios are just trying so hard to be like Marvel, it's almost embarrassing.  Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but I can't help but feel all of these films are potentially setting themselves up for destruction.  First and foremost, let me give my thoughts on every piece of big superhero movie news this week, starting with the casting of former Miss Israel and Fast and Furious-actress, Gal Gadot, as Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman actress, Gal Gadot

Personally, I think Gadot looks like Wonder Woman, and I'm glad that the filmmakers went for a more exotic looking actress, seeing as how Diana Prince is technically Amazonian.  There has been some complaining from fanboys and the like that she's too skinny and not muscular enough to be Wonder Woman, but I mean seriously, a few months with a Hollywood trainer and they'll all be changing their tunes.  While I've never seen her act before, I'm sold on her so far.  My biggest worry with this news is not who's playing Wonder Woman, it's the fact that they're throwing Wonder Woman into what already seems to be a packed to the gills Man of Steel sequel.

At the end of Man of Steel, we only first saw Superman being called Superman with him assuming the alter ego of Clark Kent at the Daily Planet.  While I did not like Man of Steel as much as I wanted to, I'd still like to see this new Superman get a little more footing as the solo hero we all know and love before the studio tries to shoehorn team-ups just to be like The Avengers.  As well, with further rumors pointing to the potential inclusion of an adult Robin, known as Nightwing, and even the Flash, this film is starting to look less and less like a Man of Steel sequel, or even a Batman/Superman movie, and more like the Justice League.  Maybe Gadot will only be in a few minutes, maybe she might even only show up in the final scene, ala Nick Fury in Iron Man, but I'd personally much rather see another solo Superman outing before any team-ups, and I'd definitely like to see a solo Wonder Woman origin film before teaming her up, seeing as how Diana has never had a live action film made about her.  Of course, the other question that begs to be asked, if Warners and DC are looking to also include the Flash, will it be Grant Gustin's Barry Allen from the CW Arrow-verse?

Actors Stephen Amell and Grant Gustin on Arrow

I truly loved Gustin as Barry Allen, he was everything I wanted out of the character that will soon become the Flash, and I can't wait to not only see the transformation, but to see his own spin-off series.  However, this brings up the biggest question of all these DC TV shows in development, ranging from Arrow, to The Flash, all the way to the Commissioner Gordon TV show, Gotham:  Will these shows tie in with the Man of Steel-cinematic universe or not?  If the Flash is truly going to be in the Man of Steel sequel, it would be stupid to not use Gustin as the Flash, seeing as to the fact that if they didn't, that would mean that there are two competing Flash interpretations at the same time.  This is something that Warners has always tried to steer clear of, unless they're willing to retract all of those statements they made back during the days of Smallville and why that show could never use Batman.

Currently, the Arrow executive producers said that there have been no talks whatsoever about tying the TV shows and the films together into the same universe, and that's truly a missed opportunity.  If they're truly wanting to be like Marvel Studios, then the left hand needs to get with what the right hand is doing, and vice versa.  Say what you want about Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, but at least it ties directly into the Marvel films currently being made, making the world of these stories feel even larger and more like the comics.  Therefore, if Warners is truly aiming for a Justice League film, why not use Gustin as the Flash and Stephen Amell as Green Arrow?  They've already got a fanbase and have proven what they can do with these roles.  Of course, this is a longshot at best and we're more than likely going to be seeing a different Flash whenever they include him in a film, thus reinforcing the argument that DC is already failing at their attempts of a shared universe and to be like Marvel.  On the other side of the coin are Fox with their upcoming X-Men and Fantastic Four films.

X-Men: Days of Future Past Poster

If I'm being honest, I am genuinely excited for next Summer's X-Men: Days of Future Past.  With X-2 director, Bryan Singer, back, and a unique time travel story that looks to combine the original trilogy's cast with the First Class cast, it makes this a film any lover of sci-fi should want to see.  The big detractor is Fox's attempts to try and turn every property they have into a shared universe similar to Marvel's, and yet they wont just bite the bullet and actually share the universe with what Marvel Studios is doing with The Avengers.  Sure, they'd have to broker a deal splitting budget costs and profits down the middle, but if Fox, or for that matter, Sony, really want to be like Marvel Studios, they should give the fanboys what they really want, which is Hugh Jackman and Andrew Garfield fighting alongside Robert Downey, Jr.  The fact of the matter is, it all boils back down to money, and therefore we're going to play the imitation game, which is why in The Avengers: Age of Ultron we'll get Magneto's children, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, joining the team and yet Marvel Studios cannot actually mention the fact that they're mutants and that they're dad is Magneto, which is only a detriment to what Marvel Studios is trying to do.  Of course, back to Fox and the X-Men franchise.

Truthfully, I think it shows good faith and belief in the upcoming film on Fox's part to pretty much go ahead and announce a Days of Future Past sequel with X-Men: Apocalypse.  I love that they brought Bryan Singer back into the fold and they're allowing Singer to really indulge in all the ways he wanted to expand the X-Men cinematic universe back in the day, and Apocalypse is a genuinely fascinating villain worthy of epic treatment.  Apocalypse is the first mutant, born in Ancient Egypt, he's not only immortal, he pretty much can do anything he sets his mind to, making him a genuine threat.  As far as superhero movie news goes, this is more than likely the piece from this past week that I'm the most excited about, and for good reason, however the announcement of Simon Kinberg as Fox's person to try and create a shared universe between X-Men and Fantastic Four dampens the joy a bit.

While I am not against seeing members of the FF crossover into the X-Men films, and vice versa, before we try to jump the gun, why not try and get the Fantastic Four right for once.  We've still yet to have the definitive version of the Fantastic Four onscreen, and if all the rumored deviations to the material pan out to be true, making the FF younger and hipper, then we still wont be getting the definitive version of Marvel's first family.  As it is, we'll just have to wait and see, but honestly, if Fox is not going to play ball with Marvel Studios, they need to at least take a page out of the Marvel Studios' playbook and remain as faithful to the comics as possible, and what they're trying to do with 2015's Fantastic Four reboot, is not sounding all that faithful.  There is a reason these characters have lived on for over fifty years now, and it's not because they're broken and need to be reinvented, it's because they were pretty much perfect from the get-go, so don't change them.  Finally, this brings me to Sony and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Poster

I make no excuses for saying that I loved The Amazing Spider-Man.  I thought Andrew Garfield was an amazing Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and director Marc Webb really reinvigorated the franchise.  I am ecstatic about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and was fairly impressed by the first trailer.  It looks like they're going bigger and bolder, while further expanding on my favorite part of the first film, which was the mystery behind Peter's parents' deaths.  The only fear I still have is that they're going too big.  The trailer pretty much all but confirmed that there are going to be three villains:  Electro, Rhino, and Green Goblin, with Easter Eggs for the Vulture and Doctor Octopus already prominent in the trailer.  The last time there were three villains in a Spider-Man movie it was Spider-Man 3, and look how that turned out.  Maybe it's just me being trepidatious, but this film is looking pretty crowded.  Do I think Marc Webb and company can pull it off?  Yeah, but it still doesn't keep me from cocking one eyebrow at this current point in time.  Of course, if Sony is really wanting to lead to a Sinister Six Spider-Man movie, then this is par for the course.

Unlike Fox, Sony only has the Spider-Man rights, therefore their way of doing a Marvel Studios' style universe is by using only Spider-Man characters.  There have long been rumors of a potential Venom movie, even a Black Cat movie (neither of whom I think are big enough characters of their own to support their own series of films), but the Sinister Six being the antagonist for Spider-Man in a future film is how Sony can achieve this.  The Sinister Six is basically the Avengers of Spider-Man villains, teaming up to bring down the Webhead, usually with an even more sinister motive beneath their schemes that is not figured out until nearly too late.  Honestly, I'd love to see the Sinister Six realized on the bigscreen, but I don't want the filmmakers to overload these films either to reach that point.  The good thing is, it seems like Sony and Marc Webb already have a plan in place, having already announced a third and fourth film to the series, with Webb commenting that everything that happens in two will directly affect those two films, once more alluding to all the villains Spidey will fight in these films coming together to form the Sinister Six.  As to how Webb will achieve this, the best way would be to do it like the comic books.

Whenever you have Spidey going up against a random street thug, just replace it with a super villain whose origin is simple enough to be summed up in a line of dialogue.  The great thing is it appears to be what they're doing with Rhino (which I love the mechanical suit from the trailer, by the way), with Webb saying that the Rhino is hardly in the movie.  He might just be a villain Spidey will tangle with once or twice, but nothing more than what would normally happen in other Spider-Man films when a mugger steals a purse and Peter must change into Spider-Man to save the day.  If this truly is the approach Webb is taking, I think it would be the only way they could pull off a Sinister Six film.

All in all, I think Warners, Fox, and Sony, have potential scenarios where they could all get it right, or they could all get it wrong.  Ultimately though, it's all because they want to be just like Marvel Studios and aren't focusing on what's best for the characters that they do own the rights to.  If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on Sony solving the Marvel Studios-styled conundrum first, with Fox in a close second, I think Warner Bros. has a good way to go, though I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they do pull it off.  Though at this moment, I just want to see The Avengers: Age of Ultron.  Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Quicksilver, and James Spader as the villainous android Ultron, yes please.  All three are fantastic actors and will do the parts right, so as for right now, make mine Marvel.